“Now we aren’t typically the carrier that comes out and announces what we are going to be selling 12 months from now. Other carriers do that, and the media loves to speculate on what we are bringing to market. But what I will tell you is that over the next six months or so you will see devices like the Palm Pre and the cousin on our network from Palm.”

– Verizon Wireless President and CEO Lowell McAdam

For Palm, 2010 will be a year of channel expansion, with its new webOS handsets coming to more carriers. Top among them, Verizon (VZ), which has been rumored to be getting a device “like the Palm Pre” since Palm (PALM) launched it. In a research note to investors today, Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu says a Palm smartphone on Verizon is pretty much inevitable.

“Based on our checks with industry and supply chain sources, we have fairly high conviction in Verizon carrying Palm’s webOS-based smart phones sometime in 2010 (potentially as early as 1H),” Wu writes.

“The reason,” Wu explains, “is three-fold: 1) despite heavy promotion and favorable reviews, sales of Android 2.0 smart phones (MOT Droid and HTC Droid Eris) have been somewhat disappointing and below expectations; 2) strong indications point to Palm’s launch exclusive with Sprint ending in 2009; and 3) our checks show high interest in webOS from Verizon including public comments by CEO Lowell McAdam.”

Interesting, especially the comment about Droid sales. If Wu is right, the device may not prove as daunting a competitive challenge as you would think.

“It’s too early to declare game over,” Wu says. “Talking with investors, most have written off Palm as a legitimate competitor and assumed Android will be the platform of choice at Verizon and other carriers. We believe Palm still has sizable advantages with its multitouch capability and vertical integration.”

“After Gateway’s 2004 merger with eMachines, AMD attempted to revive the relationship it had enjoyed with Gateway until 2001, but experienced extremely limited success. While Gateway built one AMD-powered desktop model at the request of Circuit City, AMD remains locked out entirely of Gateway’s direct internet sales, its commercial offerings and its server line. According to Gateway executives, their Company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has beaten them into ‘guacamole’ in retaliation.”

– Excerpt from AMD’s 2005 complaint against Intel

Looks like it’s going to be a very busy fall for Intel legal. This morning, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the company, alleging that it violated state and federal laws with a “systematic campaign” of illegal conduct to maintain its monopoly.

At issue here, once again, is Intel’s alleged practice of using bribery and coercion to maintain its monopoly, something rival AMD complained about in its own antitrust suit against Intel (INTC) in 2005.

AMD (AMD) alleged, for example, that in 2000, Michael Capellas, then chief executive of Compaq Computer, told AMD that because of Compaq’s relationship with AMD, Intel withheld the delivery of some microprocessors he needed for servers. Capellas told AMD he would stop buying from it, saying he “had a gun to his head.”

Further, in 2004, Gateway officials are alleged to have told AMD that Intel “beat them into guacamole” in retaliation for their limited dealings with its rival. These are but two incidents in a list that includes similar alleged acts of coercion by Intel involving 38 other computer makers, distributors and retailers.

Apparently, Cuomo has found evidence of similar behavior. “Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices.”

Yesterday, A group of House members from rural districts called on the Federal Communications Commission to investigate Google’s practice of blocking calls to numbers that use rural exchanges to charge inflated prices–something regulation prevents traditional telecom carriers from doing.

In their letter to the FCC, the lawmakers–among them Reps. Steve Buyer (R., Ind.), Charlie Melancon (D., La.), Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) and John Barrow (D., Ga.)–claim that rural consumers will be harmed if Google is allowed to “evade compliance with important principles of access and competition.”

“We understand Google has asserted Google Voice is not a ‘traditional’ telephone service–despite its use of 10-digit telephone numbers and its ability to connect calls between telephones through a local exchange carrier,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter. “Instead, Google maintains it ought to be allowed to block calls to rural telephone exchanges–a position we find ill conceived and unfair to our rural constituents.”

This, of course, is pretty much what AT&T (T) said in September when it slagged Google (GOOG) as “one of the most noisome trumpeters of so-called net-neutrality” and asked the FCC to order it to “play by the same rules as its competitors.” Google, however, insists those rules don’t apply in its case.

“The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers–not the creators of Web-based software applications,” Google telecom counsel Richard Whitt wrote in response to AT&T’s complaint. “Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.”

“Based on our channel checks, the iPhone remains the best selling device at AT&T with both the new $200/$300 iPhone 3GS and $100 legacy iPhone selling very well,” Piper Jaffary analyst Gene Munster said in a research note today.

“In July, our checks had indicated store managers were strongly recommending the legacy iPhone,” Munster notes, “as we believe this was partially driven by store representatives hoping to make the sale with the 3GS stocked out combined with efforts to reduce existing inventory levels of the legacy iPhone. However, in August, our checks indicate store managers are increasingly recommending the 3GS, and we believe this is driven by improved availability of the 3GS at most AT&T stores.”

Munster summarizes: “Overall, the iPhone remains the best selling device and our August checks indicate the iPhone took share from BlackBerry, the Nokia E71x, and most other competitor products. Finally, in our checks at Best Buy, store managers indicated the iPhone was their best selling device with stores selling out of stock as soon as they received the Apple smartphones.”

A bullish assessment, with an even more bullish conclusion: Munster says he expects Apple (AAPL) to ship seven million iPhones in the quarter. If that’s truly the case, Apple should have no trouble beating Wall Street’s expectations for its current quarter despite the gloomy economy.

One last point worth noting here: Munster is not bullish on Apple’s event tomorrow. He describes it as a “non-event,” though he seems convinced Steve Jobs will host it. “We expect Steve Jobs to introduce a new iPod lineup with a new iPod touch, new nanos, and a new classic, with cameras in the new models,” he notes. “We expect the stock to trade off on a lack of surprising announcements.”

Those ruthless, conniving bastards. Strategizing to thwart a rival.

I’m sure nothing of this sort goes on over at Google (GOOG), where everything is altruism and Segways and don’t-be-evil happy rainbows. Surely, the lobbyists Google employs are working exclusively to advance the company’s mission of organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful. They’d never do anything untoward like conspire to protect Google’s interests from a competitor. They’d never, for example, draft an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department that forced Microsoft (MSFT) to make changes to its new Vista operating system.

Please. This is business is usual. And if Google’s lobbyists aren’t holding a weekly “Screw Microsoft” meeting or some variation on that, then Google should get some new lobbyists.

“AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store,” the company said in a statement. “We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it.”

A flat denial, and one that would seem to throw Apple (AAPL) under the bus for denying iPhone owners access to Google Voice. Though just why Cupertino would take issue with an an iPhone application that offers free text messaging and allows users to make calls, routed via the Internet, for free in the United States and for a small fee internationally is unclear. After all, it’s not Apple’s domestic and international calling business the app is potentially encroaching on.

And AT&T (T) is being somewhat disingenuous here since it acknowledged this past May that it had SlingPlayer for iPhone black-holed from the App Store because of concerns over bandwidth.

So while AT&T may not directly “manage or approve applications,” the carrier is clearly capable of influencing management and approval of them.

Could it be that Apple is contractually bound to reject apps that might compete with AT&T’s service? An agreement like that would certainly make it easy for AT&T to adopt the hey-don’t-look-at-me stance it has taken with the FCC.

That said, it’s entirely possible that the Apple’s rejection of Google Voice apps had nothing to do with AT&T and everything to do with its increasingly complicated relationship with Google (GOOG).

As Daring Fireball’s John Gruber notes, “Google Voice is a mobile phone service provided by the maker of one of the biggest competitors to the iPhone OS. What if Google Voice were instead Microsoft Voice? And what if Windows Mobile were as modern and competitive as Android? Would you be as surprised then that Apple is discouraging iPhone owners from using the service?”

The Federal Trade Commission may worry about the ties between the Google (GOOG) and Apple (AAPL) boards, but Google CEO Eric Schmidt clearly doesn’t share its concern. “I don’t think Google sees Apple as a primary competitor,” he said during a luncheon with reporters ahead of the company’s annual shareholder meeting. “We encourage people to be on other companies’ boards. In my case, if there are issues that are competitive I would recuse myself. I think it’s been well established that I recuse myself in areas of the iPhone.”

Asked directly if he would resign from Apple’s board in the face of FTC scrutiny, Schmidt bristled–”Why would you ask that question?”–and then said simply, “It hasn’t crossed my mind.”

Mr. Papermaster’s employment by Apple is a violation of his agreement with IBM against working for a competitor should he leave IBM. We will vigorously pursue this case in court.”

– IBM, October 2008

IBM’s legal efforts to enforce a noncompete agreement that would have prevented 26-year company veteran Mark Papermaster from jumping ship for a high-profile job at Apple appear to have failed. In a terse statement issued this morning, Apple (AAPL) said the litigation between IBM (IBM) and Mark Papermaster has been resolved. Come April 24, Papermaster will begin leading Apple’s iPod and iPhone hardware engineering teams as SVP of Devices Hardware Engineering, reporting to CEO Steve Jobs. He will, however, have to certify in July and October that he has complied with legal obligations and not used confidential IBM information at Apple. From IBM’s own release on the matter:

IBM and Mr. Papermaster have now agreed on a resolution of the lawsuit under which Mr. Papermaster may not begin employment with Apple until April 24, 2009, six months after leaving IBM, and will remain subject thereafter to all of his contractual and other legal duties to IBM, including the obligation not to use or disclose IBM’s confidential information. Following commencement of his employment with Apple, Mr. Papermaster will be required to certify, in July 2009 and again in October 2009, that he has complied with his legal obligations not to use or disclose IBM’s confidential or proprietary information. The preliminary injunction will be replaced by a court order under which the Court will have continuing jurisdiction over this matter, including compliance enforcement powers, until October 24, 2009, one year after Mr. Papermaster’s departure from IBM.”

“We believe demand has deteriorated across most of the company’s core end-markets, with a particularly sharp slowdown in handsets, evidenced by a number of key supplier and competitor pre-announcements,” Sheerin wrote in a note to clients. “[The economic downturn] will make a recovery in the core handset business even more challenging and could accelerate cash burn.”

More ugly news for Motorola (MOT), which last week had its credit rating slashed to Junk by Standard & Poor’s.

“Mr. Papermaster’s employment by Apple is a violation of his agreement with IBM against working for a competitor should he leave IBM,” said Fred McNeese, director of IBM’s corporate media relations group. “We will vigorously pursue this case in court.”

And for good reason. As a member of the IBM (IBM) elite Integration and Values Team, Papermaster had broad access to the company’s intellectual property, trade secrets, and more. From the complaint:

The I&VT is charged with addressing the most difficult and important issues facing IBM, such as developing corporate strategy and driving innovation and growth and I&VT team members work with the most sensitive strategic information the Company possesses.

In his capacity as a member of the I&VT, Mr. Papermaster has gained access to confidential information concerning the Company’s strategic plans, marketing plans and long-term business opportunities, including the development of specific IBM products.

… Mr. Papermaster is IBM’s top expert in ‘Power’ architecture and technology, and he is privy to a whole host of trade secrets and confidences belonging to IBM that the company uses to design, develop and manufacture its products.”

Sounds like IBM has a lot to lose in Papermaster. Certainly, it’s worrisome that someone with his processor design expertise and deep knowledge of IBM research and innovation could end up at Apple, a company that’s made quite a name for itself recognizing the potential of innovations others have left fallow.

One of the investments we make is to introduce new products that initially cost more because they deliver an entirely new level of value to the customer. Then we ride the cost curves down with value engineering and volume manufacturing, leaving us far head of our competitors. We have some of these types of investments in front of us that I can’t discuss.”

– Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, July 21, 2008

The media will gather tomorrow at Apple’s Cupertino, Calif., headquarters for an invitation-only event–presumably about updates to its MacBook and MacBook Pro lines. And as with every Apple (AAPL) product launch, tomorrow’s has been preceded by feverish speculation about what form, exactly, those updates will take. Among the rumors currently making the rounds:

• Apple will uncrate a new line of MacBooks whose cases are carved from a single brick of aircraft-grade aluminum.
• Apple’s refreshed MacBook line will include a machine priced at below $1000, perhaps even as low as $800.
• The new MacBooks will feature glass, multi-touch trackpads and LED-backlit displays.
• They’ll swap out Intel’s chipset–not the central processor–for Nvidia’s MCP7A, which reportedly blows the doors off Intel’s G45 in the graphics department.
• Blu-ray will be offered as an option on high-end models.
• Finally, Apple’s new line of portables will include the unmatchable “state-of-the-art new product” to which Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer and COO Tim Cook referred earlier this year, and that product will be a tablet. Something along the lines of the “MacBook Touch” described by MacDailyNews back in July.
  

  Think MacBook screen, possibly a bit smaller, in glass with iPhone-like but fuller-featured multi-touch. Gesture library. Full Mac OS X. This is why they bought P.A. Semi. Possibly with Immersion’s haptic tech. Slot-loading SuperDrive. Accelerometer. GPS. … App Store-compatible, able to run Mac apps, too.”

An interesting spread of rumors, some quite likely, others improbable … and yet entirely plausible because, after all, it’s Apple we’re talking about. We’ll find out which of these proves true tomorrow at 10 a.m. PDT. I’ll be covering the event live, so be sure pay us a visit tomorrow.